posted at 11:31 am on December 6, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Oopsie! In what has to be one of the least-shocking outcomes of Barack Obama’s Libyan adventure, the New York Times reports that his administration secretly gave approval of weapons shipments to Libyan resistance fighters, only to learn that the weapons ended up arming Islamist terror networks. Who could have seen that coming, right?

The Obama administration secretly gave its blessing to arms shipments to Libyan rebels from Qatar last year, but American officials later grew alarmed as evidence grew that Qatar was turning some of the weapons over to Islamic militants, according to United States officials and foreign diplomats.

No evidence has emerged linking the weapons provided by the Qataris during the uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi to the attack that killed four Americans at the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, in September.

But in the months before, the Obama administration clearly was worried about the consequences of its hidden hand in helping arm Libyan militants, concerns that have not previously been reported. The weapons and money from Qatar strengthened militant groups in Libya, allowing them to become a destabilizing force since the fall of the Qaddafi government.

Maybe we can offer an alternative headline for this: Reporting that might have been valuable before the election.Tammy Bruce tweeted:

A month after the election the NYT tells us: “U.S.-Approved Arms for Libya Rebels Fell Into Jihadis’ Hands” nytimes.com/2012/12/06/wor…

This is yet another indictment of the Obama approach to decapitating regimes. In the immediate aftermath of the fall of Qaddafi, the administration didn’t hesitate to favorably compare the outcome in Libya to that in Iraq, where hundreds of thousands of American troops were used to secure the gains after the fall of Saddam Hussein. The NYT provides a post-mortem on that strategy courtesy of a former State Department adviser on the region:

The Qatari assistance to fighters viewed as hostile by the United States demonstrates the Obama administration’s continuing struggles in dealing with the Arab Spring uprisings, as it tries to support popular protest movements while avoiding American military entanglements. Relying on surrogates allows the United States to keep its fingerprints off operations, but also means they may play out in ways that conflict with American interests.

“To do this right, you have to have on-the-ground intelligence and you have to have experience,” said Vali Nasr, a former State Department adviser who is now dean of the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, part of Johns Hopkins University. “If you rely on a country that doesn’t have those things, you are really flying blind. When you have an intermediary, you are going to lose control.”

And when you don’t have any way to control what happens on the ground, you can bet that “control” will be the first thing to go. The US knew that Islamist terrorists operated in eastern Libya for years before Obama came into office. Al-Qaeda recruited heavily in the region for its fight against the US in Iraq. Decapitating Qaddafi meant losing pressure on AQ and other Islamist terror networks, and flooding the area with uncontrolled weapons almost guaranteed that the already-organized terror networks would hijack them from other less-organized resistance movements.

But this brings up another important question. The Obama administration knew that the Islamist terror networks ended up controlling many if not most of these weapons, and had become much more dangerous as a result. If that’s the case, how could they possibly have left the consulate in Benghazi as unprotected as it was?

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

I don’t know if I buy the prisoner exchange theory either but it wouldn’t surprise me if Obama would think it would give him some real leverage in the area. It’s not like he can come in with military aid even if he wanted to.

No Democrat initiated military entanglement has used US ground troops for the last 45 years.

Every Democrat president for the last 45 years has initiated military entanglements, and they’ve used al qaeda for the ground troops every single time. Carter’s Mujahideen, Clinton’s KLA and now Obama’s Libyan rebels.

I find that interesting. Knowing this fact, why would anyone believe any spin that the Democrats didn’t intend to use al qaeda for Libya? They are the Democrat Army.

I don’t know if I buy the prisoner exchange theory either but it wouldn’t surprise me if Obama would think it would give him some real leverage in the area. It’s not like he can come in with military aid even if he wanted to.

Cindy Munford on December 6, 2012 at 2:20 PM

I dunno. I don’t see any upside whatsoever to U.S. to have Ambassador held hostage and let go in exchange for the Blind Sheik. It would only help AQ, further empower the Zawhiri Bros and give more incentive to kidnap more ambassadors. What I don’t get is the theory some commenters have advanced that WH wanted Stevens dead.

What I don’t get is the theory some commenters have advanced that WH wanted Stevens dead.

Buy Danish on December 6, 2012 at 2:55 PM

I don’t get it either.

I think it’s safe to accept that the U.S. -> Libya -> Syria arms shipments actually took place, but there’s no indication that Stevens objected (he probably helped facilitate the scheme) or that he was ready to spill the beans (why would he?).

It doesn’t make a lot of sense for Obama to want Stevens dead because of anything related to that. So if not because of the clandestine arms shipments, then why? I have trouble believing the whole thing was orchestrated to engineer a politically advantageous situation for Obama.

Leaving the ambassador unprotected on the anniversary of 9/11 seems like ineptitude of the highest order, but not part of a scheme to off him.

Apparently if originated at Hillbuzz. I don’t think Obama would care about Zawhiri or AQ having more power or influence. I think he is already seen as a weak horse in that area of the world and the people in the U.S. would just want their person/people home alive. Don’t forget that the U.K. gave up the Lockerbie bomber. Somewhere along the line, that seemed like a great idea to someone in power.

Where’s Terp Mole to accuse anyone against arming Libyan Islamists of being a “Khaddafy Kuddler” and insist that any and all AQ and affiliates in Libya are pro-Khaddafy, unlike his “brave Libyan Contra allies?”

HA longs to be accepted by the mainstream. You can’t be that if you discuss Beck.

slickwillie2001 on December 6, 2012 at 3:40 PM

why is that? Beck has been right almost 100% of the time, has excellent investigative jounalists, high up insider connections, his own TV channel. Are all these people jealous or envious, or upset that Glenn gets out the truth? And Ed wants to hob nob with the mainstream, where lying and deception is the norm? I don’t understand.

why is that? Beck has been right almost 100% of the time, has excellent investigative jounalists, high up insider connections, his own TV channel. Are all these people jealous or envious, or upset that Glenn gets out the truth? And Ed wants to hob nob with the mainstream, where lying and deception is the norm? I don’t understand.

Lambs On Fire on December 6, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Because the media and blogs in some ways are the same as the politicians – they all know each other and “like” each other. They all want to be part of the same country club and if a few facts don’t get displayed, then so be it. What do you think goes on at these blog conferences?

Beck scares most of the “elites” because he doesn’t care if he is liked and hence no way to control him.

Hot Air isn’t as bad as the media, but still has its biases. It won’t link or cite Pamela Geller, who is usually more right than wrong.

Find somewhere/someone who isn’t interested in making friends and that’s where you’ll find the truth. Even the Breitbart brand has moved away from being unbiased to being a right leaning, which wasn’t Andrew Breitbart’s mandate when he started it – it was supposed to be somewhere you could get the truth no matter who it was about – left or right.

The days of “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” have long passed. It’s a matter of finding places that won’t BS you too much and this place is one of the better.

Now that NYT has written an article on Libya, Gallup has shown the unemployment rate with adjustments back over 8%, Dana Milbank complains about the lack of transparency in the Obama administration …. what’s the constitutional process for declaring a mulligan?

May not have occurred to you but there is a distinct difference between ‘interventionism’ and stupid meddling ‘operations’ conceived and run with a community organizer mentality. The real world is chess, not checkers.

Now on to the important stuff: does any of this affect Obamaphones, EBT and any other government cheese we can get? No? What’s the problem, then?

Was this really an oops? Supporting the armed Islamists has been the effect of virtually everything Obama has done in the Middle East over the last couple of years. You would expect accidents to at least occasionally be bad for the Islamists……

This is just another great reason why we need to mind out own business. Just last year the United States redistributed $54 billion from American taxpayers to foreign governments in the form of military and foreign aid.

Now that NYT has written an article on Libya, Gallup has shown the unemployment rate with adjustments back over 8%, Dana Milbank complains about the lack of transparency in the Obama administration …. what’s the constitutional process for declaring a mulligan?

normschaef on December 6, 2012 at 4:46 PM

Hopeless. I know someone who had a quibble about one candidate’s eligibility over a birth certificate but that is old hat. There is a clear problem with some text on which part of the certification of the election result since the Democratic Party did not certify their top candidate’s eligibility in their submission documents.

Think it will make any difference?

some text since the Democrat party did not certify their candidate’s eligibility.

Now that NYT has written an article on Libya, Gallup has shown the unemployment rate with adjustments back over 8%, Dana Milbank complains about the lack of transparency in the Obama administration …. what’s the constitutional process for declaring a mulligan?

normschaef on December 6, 2012 at 4:46 PM

The only fix at this point would be for Obama electors to change their vote to Romney, but you know that ain’t gonna happen. The electors meet to vote in the state capitols on December 17th.

The Congress is scheduled to meet in joint session in the House of Representatives on January 6, 2013 to conduct the official tally of electoral votes. The Vice President, as President of the Senate, is the presiding officer. Two tellers are appointed to open, present and record the votes of the States in alphabetical order. The President of the Senate announces the results of the vote and declares which persons, if any, have been elected President and Vice President of the United States. The results are entered into the official journals of the House and Senate. The President of the Senate then calls for objections to be made. If any objections are registered, they must be submitted in writing and be signed by at least one member of the House and Senate. The House and Senate would withdraw to their respective chambers to consider the merits of any objections according the procedure set out under 3 U.S.C. section 15.

The Obama administration knew that the Islamist terror networks ended up controlling many if not most of these weapons, and had become much more dangerous as a result. If that’s the case, how could they possibly have left the consulate in Benghazi as unprotected as it was

Possibly because as posited in earlier threads, the WH thought it had a pre election surprise, hostage negotiations, return of the blind sheik in exchange for hostages, and great PR for saving Americans, until someone disobeyed orders and started shooting at the attackers. They even had a reason set up for the attack, a villian in the USA, an anti muslim video no one saw, that they could use to start riots as cover

Possibly they got caught by surprise by the heroics, and went into video auto pilot to build some cover after the fiasco

I can’t imagine a Prez who cozies to the Muslim Bortherhood caring if Libyan islamists got armed by us.

No Democrat initiated military entanglement has used US ground troops for the last 45 years.
Every Democrat president for the last 45 years has initiated military entanglements, and they’ve used al qaeda for the ground troops every single time. Carter’s Mujahideen, Clinton’s KLA and now Obama’s Libyan rebels.
I find that interesting. Knowing this fact, why would anyone believe any spin that the Democrats didn’t intend to use al qaeda for Libya? They are the Democrat Army.
Buddahpundit on December 6, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Clever there how you left Reagan out of that bunch with the backing of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan for the entire breadth of his term in office. His funneling of arms to both sides in the Iran-Iraq war. Not the only items on the list btw.

You’re hyperbole sounds great but lacks the cold realism that usually defines conservative foreign policy. When you’re attempting to “intervene” in a covert fashion the actors aren’t usually pretty and it doesn’t always go exactly as planned.

Ghaddafi and Mubarak are not that much different than Saddam Hussein. They all kept their crazies in check and were our buddies, until they weren’t. But if you were full fledge on board with the “No matter what the world is a better place with Saddam gone” bandwagon before, kinda hypocritical to back up now just because the president isn’t a republican.

Makes you look like the anti-war democrats until its a democrat. The pro war and interventionist republicans who are willing to make hard decisions that aren’t always pretty until it’s not a republican.

HA longs to be accepted by the mainstream. You can’t be that if you discuss Beck.

slickwillie2001 on December 6, 2012 at 3:40 PM

why is that? Beck has been right almost 100% of the time, has excellent investigative jounalists, high up insider connections, his own TV channel. Are all these people jealous or envious, or upset that Glenn gets out the truth? And Ed wants to hob nob with the mainstream, where lying and deception is the norm? I don’t understand.

Lambs On Fire on December 6, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Easy, one of the ways that the liberals control the narrative is that they act as the career gatekeepers. If you toe the PC-line and don’t talk about vote-stealing, Zimmermann, Beck, the S-word, etc, etc, you might get a contract too to be a talking head on CNN.

The rebels reportedly shot down a Syrian fighter so does anyone know if any Stingers were included in those arms shipments? Having a few of those in the wild would make airline travel an interesting proposition!

The rebels reportedly shot down a Syrian fighter so does anyone know if any Stingers were included in those arms shipments? Having a few of those in the wild would make airline travel an interesting proposition!

Nomas on December 6, 2012 at 7:11 PM

I read somewhere that they acknowledged using a Russian SA- model missile for that shootdown. If little Bammie tasked the CIA with running weapons to Syria, they would be fools to send US missiles.

That ‘consulate’ was no consulate at all..it was the base for the gun running operation..Stephens was in charge of it and obviously it went bad, or he was supposed to be held hostage and that went bad too

but anyways, great reporting almost 3 months later new york times! very timely to wait wayyyy after the election to report this and help your celebrity in chief!

I dunno. I don’t see any upside whatsoever to U.S. to have Ambassador held hostage and let go in exchange for the Blind Sheik. It would only help AQ, further empower the Zawhiri Bros and give more incentive to kidnap more ambassadors. What I don’t get is the theory some commenters have advanced that WH wanted Stevens dead.

Buy Danish on December 6, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Just kicking an idea or two here: Obysmal’s fingers are all over the influenc of the Muslim Brotherhood. They have an open-door policy at the WH.

Essentially, Obysmal agitated for the ouster of Mubarak, which led to the grabbing of power by the MB and Morsi. Morsi wants to appease the more rabid Islamists to have the Blind Sheikh released. Perhaps Obysmal was willing to play his part in orchestrating an appeasement to Morsi, a kind of payoff?

By Mark Hosenball
WASHINGTON | Wed Aug 1, 2012 5:58pm EDT
(Reuters) – President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing U.S. support for rebels seeking to depose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his government, U.S. sources familiar with the matter said.

It doesn’t make a lot of sense for Obama to want Stevens dead because of anything related to that. So if not because of the clandestine arms shipments, then why? I have trouble believing the whole thing was orchestrated to engineer a politically advantageous situation for Obama.

Leaving the ambassador unprotected on the anniversary of 9/11 seems like ineptitude of the highest order, but not part of a scheme to off him.

steebo77 on December 6, 2012 at 3:10 PM

I don’t think that Stevens was supposed to die. The whole scheme seems to have been set up as a prisoner (Blind Sheikh)/ hostage (Stevens) exchange in order to provide Obysmal with one more pre-election feat since “I got Osama” was fading from memory. (Yes, I am that cynical.) Things got out of hand when the rioters escalated their attack, and Stevens was “collateral” damage while the covert gun-running was going on undercover. Setting up an exchange on the anniversary of 9/11 would have been another photo-op worthy feather in Big O’s cap.

Even the planting of the obscure video trailer to arouse the Egyptians seems like part of the diversionary cover of the whole operation. On whose radar had this idiotic film been prior to the 9/11 events?

Seems to be a running theme in what appears to be a “Conservative establishment”…America’s always right even when run by a Commie like Obama and his cronies. They just can’t bring themselves to believe that the U.S. can actually support the enemies of America and Israel. Anything that threatens the mom and apple pie image they have of America by those even daring to question everything from the JFK assassination, to Waco, to Oklahoma City, to 9-11 to Bin Laden’s death makes them uncomfortable.

They want to believe that America is only temporarily run by the Communists, rather than believe they may have already won. Even with the likes of Warren Buffet out there, they still refuse to believe that a Communist can be a billionaire, and that large corporations and major banks can be allied with them.

I predict that in the next 3 years Obama will do all kinds of evil things! In fact, I predict he’ll do such wicked deeds I’m not even able to imagine them, because I’m not anywhere near as evil as he is!

I predict that in the next 3 years Obama will do all kinds of evil things! In fact, I predict he’ll do such wicked deeds I’m not even able to imagine them, because I’m not anywhere near as evil as he is!

Wow, I’m as special as Glenn!

…sheesh.

MelonCollie on December 6, 2012 at 10:46 PM

I take all these guys with a grain of salt…Rush, Alex Jones, Beck, Hannity, O’Reilly, etc. because ultimately they are running businesses. Not that I’m against profit motive, but I try to be a discerning consumer as to what they’re trying to sell me…because I know damn well I’m being marketed.

In a way, they’re feeding off of our fears, our misery and our sadness about what direction this country is going in.

Of course, the Olbermann’s, Maddows, Matthews’s, and so on are no better. This “power to the people” mantra of theirs while they’re raking in the bucks doing it is soundly hypocritical.

If you were the enemy and you were contemplating America’s future (or lack thereof) what would you do? First you know that a total incompetent was re- elected by a majority looking for a government handout. Second you know that the handout well is about to dry up. Third on top of 1 and 2, the military is being downsized dramatically and sissified by political correctness.Fourth you realize that the soon-to-be-implemented social welfare medical program will not only create economic chaos but will reduce America’s medical status to that of, say, Haiti. Out of money and with a reduced military both unwilling and unable to fight-and also insufficient numbers to be effective, in any case-the best thing to do is WAIT for the house to burn down after being torched by its owners.Only fools would invade a house already in flames.

Every Democrat president for the last 45 years has initiated military entanglements, and they’ve used al qaeda for the ground troops every single time. Carter’s Mujahideen, Clinton’s KLA and now Obama’s Libyan rebels.

Buddahpundit on December 6, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Clever there how you left Reagan out of that bunch with the backing of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan for the entire breadth of his term in office. His funneling of arms to both sides in the Iran-Iraq war. Not the only items on the list btw.

Genuine on December 6, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Everything you wrote in your response was non sequitur. Reagan can’t initiate what has already been initiated. Reagan continued what was started with Carter. I don’t even critcize Carter for this. It was a good idea to arm the Mujahideen against the Soviets at the time. That doesn’t change the fact that no Democrat for 45 years has used US ground troops in any military engagement that they initiated. They used al qaeda for all of them. A close working relationship has been established.

I don’t see how your game is played, no. The fact that every Democrat since Carter exclusively used al qaeda as the foot soldiers in every one of their non-inherited military endeavors is factual. I don’t include police actions like Black Hawk Down and hostage rescue attempts. Black Hawk Down is the only example I can think of that challenges it, but it was a police action and Clinton pretty much inherited the situation from old Bush.

This is just your typical “if a tree falls in the forest” sort of thread. Obama lied about Benghazi, he lied about F&F, he’s arming Morsi, he’s undermining our domestic industry…yet nobody in the press cares. It’s just that they’re on the same team. They’re not delusional, they’re on the same side…even Scrapper Tapper, the darling of Hot Air. How he cut a deal to ask inconsequential, yet somehow hard hitting, questions I will never know. But it has to be a deal in a world where the press colludes on the general narrative.

If a GOPer gooper had done one iota of this stuff, they’d be up at arms. But no, they sit by and let Romney be tarred as a felon and a murderer and someone who doesn’t care.

Please don’t give the NYT credit here. It’s just a “see we covered it” bit of Kabuki while the real fellow traveler leg work is being done.

The lawlessness of this administration, and the mindlessness of a culture that would re-elect this fraud, are simply too much to process. I hypothesized very early on that it was gun-running gone bad, and one has to believe that had the truth come out during the election, a significant chunk of the electorate might have turned on Obama. Knowing this now is maddening.

even Scrapper Tapper, the darling of Hot Air. How he cut a deal to ask inconsequential, yet somehow hard hitting, questions I will never know. But it has to be a deal in a world where the press colludes on the general narrative.

clnurnberg on December 8, 2012 at 5:19 AM

I noticed that about Tapper. He’s sort of the Newt Gingrich of the MSM. They’ve instructed him to appeal to conservatives in a nonsubstantive way in hopes of getting conservatives to waste time on the frivolity. He should have been asking “Did the president provide the arms for these terrorists who just attacked Benghazi?” Instead you get little Sununu type political jabs. That’s another one whose script is written by the left.

The bitter pill is the Russians through the Turks told anyone who would listen in the WH, CIA, and State what was happening. The Turk liaison who was the last meet with Stephens told him the Russians would not tolerate Obama arming Islamist radicals. The Russians may have okayed the attack, but Obama is the reason they had no choice but to shut down the gun running op.